CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 18 juin 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   690 3.10.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   7 and 9 October 2008   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 23 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 7   October 2008 and 17 on 9 October 2008.   Press releases and texts of the judgments will be available at 11 a.m. (local time) on the Court’s Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).     Tuesday 7 October 2008   Kalmár and Lorencz v. Hungary (application no. 31692/06) The applicants, László Kalmár and his mother, Terézia Lorencz, are Hungarian nationals who were born in 1960 and 1928 respectively. They live in Budapest. The case concerns the applicants’ complaint, in particular, about the excessive length of two sets of civil proceedings and criminal proceedings against Mr Kalmár for libel. They rely on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Molnár v. Hungary (no. 10346/05) The applicant, Éva Molnár, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1954 and lives in Engelskirchen (Germany). Following the 2002 legislative elections in Hungary, the applicant took part in a demonstration demanding a recount of the votes. The case concerns her complaint that that demonstration was dispersed simply because the police had not been given prior notification. She relies on Article   11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the Convention.   Patyi and Others v. Hungary (no. 5529/05) The applicants are 48 Hungarian nationals who were creditors, together with some 40,000 other individuals, of an insolvent private company. The applicants complain about a ban on their holding a series of demonstrations concerning their outstanding claims which they intended to hold in 2004 in front of the Prime Minister’s private residence in Budapest. They rely on Articles   10 (freedom of expression) and   11 (freedom of assembly and association).   Mancevschi v. Moldova (no. 33066/04) The applicant, Oleg Mancevschi, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1962 and lives in Chişinău. He is a lawyer. The case concerns, in particular, the applicant’s complaint about a search of his apartment and office in the context of a murder investigation against one of his clients. He relies on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life).   Dublas v. Poland (no. 48247/06) Rażniak v. Poland (no. 6767/03) The applicants are two Polish nationals: Grzegorz Dublas who was born in 1972 and lives in Pruszcz Gdański (Poland); and, Zygmunt Rażniak who was born in 1952 and is currently detained in Warsaw Remand Centre. Mr Dublas was arrested in June 2004 on suspicion of drug dealing. He was released from pre-trial detention in November 2006; the criminal proceedings against him are currently still pending. Mr Rażniak was arrested in August 2000 on suspicion of founding and leading a criminal armed gang which he used to have such crimes as murder, robbery and drug trafficking carried out. He was convicted as charged in May 2003 and sentenced to 7 years’ imprisonment. Relying on Article   5 §   3 (right to liberty and security), both applicants complain of the excessive length of their detention. Mr   Dublas further complains of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him, in breach of Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time). Mr Rażniak also alleges that, having sustained serious injuries when his car exploded in May 2000, his medical condition is incompatible with detention and he risks a permanent and serious deterioration in his health, in violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment).   Bogumil v. Portugal (no. 35228/03) The applicant, Adam Bogumil, is a Polish national who was born in 1971. When the application was lodged he was being held in Lisbon Prison. In November 2002, when the applicant arrived at Lisbon airport from Rio de Janeiro (Brazil), he was searched by customs officers, who found several sachets of cocaine hidden in his shoes. The applicant informed them that he had swallowed a further sachet, which was in his stomach. He was taken to hospital and underwent surgery to remove the sachet from his body. Charges were brought against him for drug trafficking, and he was placed in pre-trial detention. In September 2003 the Lisbon Criminal Court convicted him of the charges against him, sentenced him to four years and ten months’ imprisonment and imposed an exclusion order. Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life), the applicant complains that there was a serious intrusion into his physical integrity on account of the surgery performed on him. In addition, he alleges under Article 6 (right to a fair trial) that he did not receive genuine legal assistance during the criminal proceedings against him.   Barb v. Romania (no. 5945/03) The applicant, Ioan Barb, is a Romanian national who was born in 1960 and lives in Călan (Romania). He is a journalist, and complains about his conviction for defamation following the publication in a national newspaper of an article entitled “Hunedoara family mounts a 300,000-lei swindle” and sub-titled “The President of the Forum of Germans, P.D., promised 700   jobs in Germany, with no legal basis; 700 people have already been conned”. He relies on Article 10 (freedom of expression).   Saya and Others v. Turkey (no. 4327/02) The applicants are 11 Turkish nationals who live in Adıyaman (Turkey). The case concerns the applicants’ allegation that the police used excessive force to arrest them during a 1999 May Day march and that the authorities did not carry out an effective, independent and impartial investigation into their allegation. They rely on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment and lack of effective investigation), 6 (right to a fair trial),   11 (freedom of assembly and association) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Dobrescu v. Romania (no. 3565/04) Friedrich v. Romania (no. 18108/03) Grigoraş v. Romania (no. 19188/03) Marcel Roşca v. Romania (no. 1266/03) The applicants rely on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). The applicants in the case of Grigoraş also rely on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing).   Abacı v. Turkey (no. 33431/02) The applicant relies on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Günseli Kaya v. Turkey (no. 40885/02) The applicant relies on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing).     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complain in particular under Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings. The applicant company in the case of Ecoprevent Kft and the applicant in the case of Jerzak also rely on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Ecoprevent Kft v. Hungary (no. 5194/07) Fondyódi v. Hungary (no. 30799/04) Sipos v. Hungary (no. 7060/05) Temesvári v. Hungary (no. 12935/05) Gnatowska v. Poland (no. 23789/04) Jerzak v. Poland (no. 29360/06) Craiu v. Romania (no. 26662/02) Kemal Balıkçı v. Turkey (no. 20605/03)     Thursday 9 October 2008   Just satisfaction Akimova v. Azerbaijan (no. 19853/03) The applicant, Valentina Akimova, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1950 and lives in Baku (Azerbaijan). In a judgment of 27   September 2007, the Court found that the domestic authorities’ decision to postpone, for an indefinite period of time, the enforcement of an eviction order against internally displaced persons illegally occupying the applicant’s apartment had amounted to an unlawful interference with the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions, in breach of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). The Court considered that the question of the application of Article   41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision.   Kalkanov v. Bulgaria (no. 19612/02) The applicant, Iliya Georgiev Kalkanov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1944 and lives in Pleven (Bulgaria). The applicant complains of the unfairness of the civil proceedings brought by him for judicial review of his dismissal for negligence. He relies on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing).   Valentin Ivanov v. Bulgaria (no. 76942/01) The applicant, Valentin Petrov Ivanov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1969 and lives in Sofia. In 1992 the applicant confessed to having assisted his former father-in-law   in   the murders of two body-guards. He was found guilty, in particular, of   premeditated aggravated murder   in 1999 and   sentenced   to life imprisonment. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him. He relies on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Brajović-Bratanović v. Croatia (no. 9224/06) The applicant, Sofija Brajović-Bratanović, is a United States national who was born in 1946 and lives in Bethesda (United States of America). The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about not being able to repossess her flat in Cavtat (Croatia) and the length of the civil proceedings. She relies on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Just satisfaction Gashi v. Croatia (no. 32457/05) The applicant, Shani Gashi, now deceased, was a Croatian national who was born in 1962 and lived in Pula (Croatia). In a judgment of 13   December 2007, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) concerning the applicant’s complaint that the domestic authorities annulled the contract for a flat he had bought from Pula Municipality. The Court considered that the question of the application of Article   41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision.   Forminster Enterprises Limited v. the Czech Republic (no. 38238/04) The applicant, Forminster Enterprises Limited, is a company registered in Cyprus. The case concerns the impounding of its securities for a period exceeding nine years. The applicant company relies, in particular, on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Abramyan v. Russia (no. 10709/02) The applicant, Edgar Nikolayevich Agramyan, is a Russian national who was born in 1974 and lives in Pyatigorsk (Russia). The applicant complains, in particular, about the unfairness of criminal proceedings in that the trial court reclassified the charges against him and his case was examined on appeal in his and his counsel’s absence. He relies on Articles   6   §§   1, 3   (a) and   (b) (right to a fair trial).   Albekov and Others v. Russia (no. 68216/01) The applicants are three Russian nationals who live in the Chechen Republic: Ramzan Albekov who was born in 1948 and lives in Kurchaloy; and, Khusain Minkailov and Raiman Uspanova who were born in 1980 and 1944, respectively, and live in Akhkinchu-Barzoy. Ramzan Albekov’s brother, Vakhzhi Albekov, born in 1969, was blown up by a landmine on 23 October 2002. The following day Khusain Minkailov’s brother, Khasayn Minkailov, born in 1982, part of the search party who went to look for Vakhzhi Albekov, was also blown up by a mine. Raiman Uspanova’s son, Nokha Uspanov, born in 1973, on learning that Khasayn Minkailov was seriously injured immediately went to look for him. He was then also blown up by a mine. The case concerns the applicants’ allegation, in particular, that Russia was responsible for the death of their relatives as the landmines which had blown them up had been laid by federal forces. They rely on Article   2 (right to life), Article   13 (right to an effective remedy), Article   34 (right of individual petition) and Article   38 §   1   (a) (obligation to furnish necessary facilities for the examination of the case).   Itslayev v. Russia (no. 34631/02) The applicant, Dokka Saydaminovich Itslayev, is a Russian national who was born in 1959 and lives in Nazran (Russia). The case concerns the applicant’s complaint in particular that   proceedings he brought against his employer, Urus-Martan District Administration, for payment of salary   arrears were dismissed as lodged out of time. He relies, in particular, on   Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing).   Moiseyev v. Russia (no. 62936/00) The applicant, Valentin Ivanovich Moiseyev, is a Russian national who was born in 1946 and lives in Moscow. Mr Moiseyev was arrested in July 1998 and, accused of having disclosed classified information to a South Korean intelligence agent, was charged with high treason. He was convicted as charged by Moscow City Court in August 2001. That decision was upheld by the Supreme Court in January 2002. The case concerns, in particular, the applicant’s complaint about the conditions of his detention on remand in Lefortovo Prison, of transport between Lefortovo and Moscow City Court and of confinement at that court. He relies on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). Further relying on Article   5 §§   3 and   4 (right to liberty and security), he also complains about the excessive length of his pre-trial detention and not being able to obtain judicial review of that detention. He further complains under Article   6 §§   1,   3   (b) and   (c) (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) about the unfairness and excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him. He also alleges under Article   7 (no punishment without law) that his conviction was based on unforeseeable and retrospective application of the law, there having been no statutory list of State secrets at the time he had allegedly committed high treason. Finally, relying on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life and correspondence), he complains of unjustified restrictions on family visits and his correspondence.   Oleg Nikitin v. Russia (no. 36410/02) The applicant, Oleg Viktorovich Nikitin, is a Russian national who was born in 1977 and is currently serving a ten year-sentence in a penitentiary establishment in Mariinsk (Russia) for robbery. The case concerns Mr Nikitin’s allegation that he was ill-treated in police custody and that the domestic authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into his allegation. He relies on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 13   (right to an effective remedy).   Trochev v. Russia (no. 6396/05) The applicant, Vladimir Pavlovitch Trochev, is a Russian national who was born in 1934 and lives in Perm (Russia). He complains of the long and unjustified delay in executing final domestic judicial decisions ordering the Russian authorities to pay him compensation for the damage sustained as a result of unlawful detention and conviction. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing in a reasonable time), Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), Article 5 § 5 (right to liberty and security) and Article   3 of Protocol   No.   7 (compensation for wrongful conviction).   Yusupova and Zaurbekov v. Russia (no. 22057/02) Zulpa Akhmatova and Others v. Russia (nos. 13569/02 and 13573/02) The applicants in the first case are two Russian nationals, Roza Yusupova and Ayndi Zaurbekov, who were born in 1958 and 1983 respectively and live in Grozny (Chechen Republic). They are the wife and son of Abdulkasin Zaurbekov who was born in 1951. On 17   October 2000, having been told that his contract at the Temporary Office of the Interior of the Oktyabrskiy District of Grozny as a crane operator would not be extended, he went there to collect his wages with his son, Ayndi, who waited outside for him to return; he has not been seen since. The applicants allege that the authorities were responsible for their relative’s disappearance and that the investigation into their allegation was inadequate.   The applicants in the second case are six Russian nationals: Zulpa Akhmatova, born in 1939, Abaz Debizov, born in 1932 (now deceased), Taus Serbiyeva, born in 1932, Saret Yasadova, born in 1963, and Sharpudi Bargayev, born in 1956, who live/d in Novye Atagi (Chechen Republic); and, Islam Serbiyev, born in 1964, who lives in Grozny. Ms Akhmatova and Mr   Debizov are the parents of Said-Magomed Debizov, born in 1967; Ms Serbiyeva and Mr   Serbiyev are the mother and brother of Iznovr Serbiyev, born in 1967; and, Ms Yasadova and Mr Bargayev are the parents of Bekkhan Bargayev, born in 1981. The families have had no news of the three men since 14   January 2001. They allege that their relatives disappeared after being detained by Russian servicemen during a “sweeping operation”.   They all rely, in particular, on Articles   2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article   38 §   1   (a) (obligation to furnish necessary facilities for the examination of the case).     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complain in particular under Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings. The applicant in the case of Bähnk also relies on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Bähnk v. Germany (no. 10732/05) Marchenko v. Russia (no. 5507/06) Orlova v. Russia (no. 21088/06)     *** Press contacts Adrien Raif-Meyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 33 37) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Sania Ivedi (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 59 45)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.